Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Really, what's so bad about it?
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Boikat
Jun 14, 2012, 6:58:02 PM6/14/12
to
On Jun 14, 5:40 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 12:02 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/14/12 11:17 AM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> You have no doubt noticed that concrete sidewalks get darker when they
> > >>>>>> get wet. But the water, in such thin films, is transparent, so there is
> > >>>>>> no obvious reason for light to be diminished when passing through it. So
> > >>>>>> why do concrete sidewalks get darker when they get wet?
>
> > >>>>>> A. God makes sidewalks darken when they get wet.
> > >>>>>> B. Some other mechanism is responsible, which I do not know, but which
> > >>>>>> eliminates God.
>
> > >>>>>> Those are the only choices. Which do you pick?
>
> > >>>>> Mark I answered this.
>
> > >>>> Sorry; I never saw it.
>
> > >>>>> What I said was that I think I know the answer to this.
> > >>>>> The side walk is porous and when wet the reflection that reaches
> > >>>>> you from the water, comes back in many directions, which means
> > >>>>> you see less reflection,less light so the sidewalk looks darker.
> > >>>>> But if you look from from a different angle , it may even look
> > >>>>> brighter.
>
> > >>>> That makes no sense, though that may be caused by your inability to
> > >>>> express yourself clearly. Nevertheless, I just got a shaded sidewalk
> > >>>> wet and looked at it from all angles; it was always darker than the dry
> > >>>> sidewalk. So your answer does not work.
>
> > >>>>> It all has to do with the laws that were created. So there is no
> > >>>>> other choice, everything is a result of God.
>
> > >>>> So you are saying that even when some other mechanism is responsible,
> > >>>> God is still responsible. Okay. So evolution is a result of God, too,
> > >>>> and if we deny it, we deny God.
>
> > >>> Mark I never said anything about a shaded sidewalk.
>
> > >> Yes you did. You said sidewalk, and sidewalks are often in the shade.
> > >> You do not get to ignore parts of the world that are inconvenient to
> > >> your beliefs.
>
> > >>> No wonder you believe the scientists, you see what you want to see.
>
> > >> I want to see what is actually there. You don't.
>
> > >>> What other ?
>
> > >> I said above: A) God did it. B) Something else, unknown. Choose.
>
> > > Like said before Mark. What other other mechanism is there?
> > > Just to say something else, unknown. Is not scientific.
>
> > On the contrary. It is unscientific *not* to say something else,
> > unknown. More than unscientific, it is dishonest.
>
> > > How can you have a idea and count it as real if it is not known?
>
> > Why would you want to? If something is a paperweight, would you count
> > it as a goldfish? If something is bloodhound, would you count it as a
> > baseball umpire? If something is unknown, why would you count it as
> > anything other than unknown?
>
> > And let me give an example of where your kind of thinking leads. This
> > morning I heard a news story about an innocent man who was recently
> > released after spending 34 years in jail. When the man was tried, the
> > choice presented to the jury was that the guilty man was him or someone
> > unknown. Never mind that he had an airtight alibi; if you had been on
> > that jury, the option of "unknown" would be unthinkable, and you would
> > certainly have joined in convicting him.
>
> > > Isn't that what the scientists are about, to not support things
> > > that they have no answers for?
>
> > What scientists are about is looking for things that they have no
> > answers for and finding the answers. That would be impossible if they,
> > like you, pretended to have the answers all the time already.
>
> > > Isn't that what they say many religions do?
>
> > What many religions do is to pretend to have answers where the actual
> > answers are unknown, often unknowable. Many other religions, however,
> > are far more comfortable than you about admitting when they do not know
> > something.
>
> > > For example, the scientist say they don't know how life started.
>
> > They know something about it, but far from everything. Do you want them
> > to lie about it instead, like you do?
>
> > > Yet the say it had to be from non life.
>
> > That's just basic logic. If it started from life, then that was not its
> > true start.
>
> > > They have to say this because their other hypothesis of
> > > 'evolution' has to have life coming from non creation.
>
> > Four lies in two lines. Do you get some prize for the most dishonesty
> > per post?
>
> > > [snip more lies]
> > > That is why the bible says the truth will set you free.
>
> > You must really hate freedom.
>
<snip sig>
> The organisms look designed, hence we theorize they are designed.
How do they "look designed"? How do you test your conclusion?
<snip remaining inanities>
Boikat
> On Jun 15, 12:02 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/14/12 11:17 AM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> You have no doubt noticed that concrete sidewalks get darker when they
> > >>>>>> get wet. But the water, in such thin films, is transparent, so there is
> > >>>>>> no obvious reason for light to be diminished when passing through it. So
> > >>>>>> why do concrete sidewalks get darker when they get wet?
>
> > >>>>>> A. God makes sidewalks darken when they get wet.
> > >>>>>> B. Some other mechanism is responsible, which I do not know, but which
> > >>>>>> eliminates God.
>
> > >>>>>> Those are the only choices. Which do you pick?
>
> > >>>>> Mark I answered this.
>
> > >>>> Sorry; I never saw it.
>
> > >>>>> What I said was that I think I know the answer to this.
> > >>>>> The side walk is porous and when wet the reflection that reaches
> > >>>>> you from the water, comes back in many directions, which means
> > >>>>> you see less reflection,less light so the sidewalk looks darker.
> > >>>>> But if you look from from a different angle , it may even look
> > >>>>> brighter.
>
> > >>>> That makes no sense, though that may be caused by your inability to
> > >>>> express yourself clearly. Nevertheless, I just got a shaded sidewalk
> > >>>> wet and looked at it from all angles; it was always darker than the dry
> > >>>> sidewalk. So your answer does not work.
>
> > >>>>> It all has to do with the laws that were created. So there is no
> > >>>>> other choice, everything is a result of God.
>
> > >>>> So you are saying that even when some other mechanism is responsible,
> > >>>> God is still responsible. Okay. So evolution is a result of God, too,
> > >>>> and if we deny it, we deny God.
>
> > >>> Mark I never said anything about a shaded sidewalk.
>
> > >> Yes you did. You said sidewalk, and sidewalks are often in the shade.
> > >> You do not get to ignore parts of the world that are inconvenient to
> > >> your beliefs.
>
> > >>> No wonder you believe the scientists, you see what you want to see.
>
> > >> I want to see what is actually there. You don't.
>
> > >>> What other ?
>
> > >> I said above: A) God did it. B) Something else, unknown. Choose.
>
> > > Like said before Mark. What other other mechanism is there?
> > > Just to say something else, unknown. Is not scientific.
>
> > On the contrary. It is unscientific *not* to say something else,
> > unknown. More than unscientific, it is dishonest.
>
> > > How can you have a idea and count it as real if it is not known?
>
> > Why would you want to? If something is a paperweight, would you count
> > it as a goldfish? If something is bloodhound, would you count it as a
> > baseball umpire? If something is unknown, why would you count it as
> > anything other than unknown?
>
> > And let me give an example of where your kind of thinking leads. This
> > morning I heard a news story about an innocent man who was recently
> > released after spending 34 years in jail. When the man was tried, the
> > choice presented to the jury was that the guilty man was him or someone
> > unknown. Never mind that he had an airtight alibi; if you had been on
> > that jury, the option of "unknown" would be unthinkable, and you would
> > certainly have joined in convicting him.
>
> > > Isn't that what the scientists are about, to not support things
> > > that they have no answers for?
>
> > What scientists are about is looking for things that they have no
> > answers for and finding the answers. That would be impossible if they,
> > like you, pretended to have the answers all the time already.
>
> > > Isn't that what they say many religions do?
>
> > What many religions do is to pretend to have answers where the actual
> > answers are unknown, often unknowable. Many other religions, however,
> > are far more comfortable than you about admitting when they do not know
> > something.
>
> > > For example, the scientist say they don't know how life started.
>
> > They know something about it, but far from everything. Do you want them
> > to lie about it instead, like you do?
>
> > > Yet the say it had to be from non life.
>
> > That's just basic logic. If it started from life, then that was not its
> > true start.
>
> > > They have to say this because their other hypothesis of
> > > 'evolution' has to have life coming from non creation.
>
> > Four lies in two lines. Do you get some prize for the most dishonesty
> > per post?
>
> > > [snip more lies]
> > > That is why the bible says the truth will set you free.
>
> > You must really hate freedom.
>
<snip sig>
> The organisms look designed, hence we theorize they are designed.
How do they "look designed"? How do you test your conclusion?
<snip remaining inanities>
Boikat
Ray Martinez
Jun 14, 2012, 9:12:59 PM6/14/12
to
> How do you test your conclusion?
implies Designer) and by the fact that "Living organisms, Paley
argued, are even more complicated than watches, 'in a degree which
exceeds all computation.'"
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
In other words we find or discover in species a far greater degree of
man-made design.
Ray
Slow Vehicle
Jun 14, 2012, 11:05:04 PM6/14/12
to
Do this for me, if you would. Compare something you say is designed
with something you say is not designed. Identify, if you would, that
(or those) characteristic (or characteristics) that demonstrate design
in the first instance, and demonstrate lack of design in the second.
Just as a starting point...
Mark Isaak
Jun 15, 2012, 1:36:08 AM6/15/12
to
>>[...]
> In other words we find or discover in species a far greater degree of
> man-made design.
In other words, they do not look designed. Paley himself noted, in
chapter 2, that designed things are fundamentally different from living
things. In fact, he has to make his watch useless as a watch in order
to compare it with life.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
>>> The organisms look designed, hence we theorize they are designed.
>>
>> How do they "look designed"?
>
> The claim is: they appear designed.
>
>> How do you test your conclusion?
>
> Our conclusion is tested true by the fact that it is logical (design
> implies Designer) and by the fact that "Living organisms, Paley
> argued, are even more complicated than watches, 'in a degree which
> exceeds all computation.'"
>
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
Complicated indicates lack of design.
>>
>> How do they "look designed"?
>
> The claim is: they appear designed.
>
>> How do you test your conclusion?
>
> Our conclusion is tested true by the fact that it is logical (design
> implies Designer) and by the fact that "Living organisms, Paley
> argued, are even more complicated than watches, 'in a degree which
> exceeds all computation.'"
>
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
> In other words we find or discover in species a far greater degree of
> man-made design.
chapter 2, that designed things are fundamentally different from living
things. In fact, he has to make his watch useless as a watch in order
to compare it with life.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Boikat
Jun 15, 2012, 2:50:04 AM6/15/12
to
feaures indicate "design",? Personal incredulity or arguments of
ignorance, and personal religious beliefs don't count.
>
> > How do you test your conclusion?
>
> Our conclusion is tested true by the fact that it is logical (design
> implies Designer) and by the fact that "Living organisms, Paley
> argued, are even more complicated than watches, 'in a degree which
> exceeds all computation.'"
argument from incredulity. That is not sufficient evidence, and
certainly does not test your conclusion. Try again.
>
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
>
> In other words we find or discover in species a far greater degree of
> man-made design.
Boikat
Syamsu
Jun 15, 2012, 5:42:17 AM6/15/12
to
was decide as a whole. For a thing to be decided in small bits, it
would look more gradient, and random, and the parts would not fit
together.
But wait, you dont acknowledge freedom is real anyhow.
Syamsu
Jun 15, 2012, 5:43:58 AM6/15/12
to
of intelligent design.
Boikat
Jun 15, 2012, 6:32:56 AM6/15/12
to
are constantly screaming about how your "properly subjective opinion"
should count as factual, and needs to be part of science. Aside from
being nonsense, in the way you use it, subjectivity and science does
not mix, no matter how hard you throw your amusing little tantrums.
Boikat
Boikat
Jun 15, 2012, 6:48:10 AM6/15/12
to
opinion. How do you test your conclusion?
> For a thing to be decided in small bits, it
> would look more gradient, and random, and the parts would not fit
> together.
can lead to choking? Or how, in humans, the vertical spine can lead to
ruptured disks between the vertebrae?
>
> But wait, you dont acknowledge freedom is real anyhow
will" and "decision making", and apply to rocks and other lumps of
inanimate matter.
Boikat
chris thompson
Jun 15, 2012, 8:13:07 AM6/15/12
to
analysis- we will accept it whole-heartedly.
It's your methodology we object to. Without the proper methodology,
your conclusions don't matter spit.
Chris
Slow Vehicle
Jun 15, 2012, 8:15:08 AM6/15/12
to
'design".
Because even proponents of design cannot define it, demonstrate it, or
say how to recognize it or test for it.
What "loving choice", what benevolence of a perfect designer, is
expressed by (for instance) the cobbled-together nature of the
arrangement of mammalian cranial nerves?
If the human body actually represented the directive will of a
supernatural designer, there should be a price on her head; the
evidence of her work would reflect that she is an idiot, a liar, a
trickster, or incompetent.
Slow Vehicle
Jun 15, 2012, 8:15:51 AM6/15/12
to
Syamsu
Jun 15, 2012, 9:13:09 AM6/15/12
to
On Jun 15, 2:13 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You are lying, you don't accept any theory based on freedom like
intelligent design, where you have no problem with force mechanisms
even if they are highly speculative.
By same standards of evidence intelligent design got a lot more going
for it then a great many evolutionary theories.
wrote:
intelligent design, where you have no problem with force mechanisms
even if they are highly speculative.
By same standards of evidence intelligent design got a lot more going
for it then a great many evolutionary theories.
Slow Vehicle
Jun 15, 2012, 10:13:45 AM6/15/12
to
<snip>
> You are lying, you don't accept any theory based on freedom like
> intelligent design, where you have no problem with force mechanisms
> even if they are highly speculative.
>
> By same standards of evidence intelligent design got a lot more going
> for it then a great many evolutionary theories.
...which might mean something, if you had ever presented evidence for
design that rose beyond, "Well, it clearly looks designed to me", or,
"You deny that rocks lovingly choose the right to appear to be
designed, so you are lying about the holocaust."
> You are lying, you don't accept any theory based on freedom like
> intelligent design, where you have no problem with force mechanisms
> even if they are highly speculative.
>
> By same standards of evidence intelligent design got a lot more going
> for it then a great many evolutionary theories.
design that rose beyond, "Well, it clearly looks designed to me", or,
"You deny that rocks lovingly choose the right to appear to be
designed, so you are lying about the holocaust."
Syamsu
Jun 15, 2012, 10:32:52 AM6/15/12
to
it a chance.
Boikat
Jun 15, 2012, 10:37:14 AM6/15/12
to
beliefs.
> where you have no problem with force mechanisms
> even if they are highly speculative.
>
> By same standards of evidence intelligent design got a lot more going
> for it then a great many evolutionary theories.
ToE, and you cannot pretend you are unaware of that.
Boikat
Slow Vehicle
Jun 15, 2012, 11:44:16 AM6/15/12
to
for ANY theory that rose beyond, "Well, it looks designed to me", or,
"You are a proven liar about the holocaust because you don't think
rocks can lovingly choose to have free will".
I am flattered that you think I have enough influence to "sabotage" a
theory...
Boikat
Jun 15, 2012, 10:42:49 AM6/15/12
to
the theory, then the theory isn't worth much to begin with.
Boikat
Syamsu
Jun 15, 2012, 2:38:33 PM6/15/12
to
based on freedom, and then with groupthink.
Fact is freedom plays no role in evolutionist ideas about human beings
even, see Dennet, Cosmides, Tooby, Darwin, Heackel, etc
That Dennet can liken free will to the workings of a thermostat, and
get away with it, means that a logic of alternative results in the
moment means absolutely nothing to Darwinists.
Ymir
Jun 15, 2012, 3:06:24 PM6/15/12
to
In article
<nando-612264bb-1e5e-4...@8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
Out of curiosity, have you actually *read* any Dennett?
André
<nando-612264bb-1e5e-4...@8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
André
Slow Vehicle
Jun 15, 2012, 3:44:28 PM6/15/12
to
<snip>
> Uh it just takes consistent intellectual violence against any theory
> based on freedom, and then with groupthink.
spoken by humans....
What is "intellectual violence"? Disagreeing with you? Guilty.
Using foul language and personal attacks? Um, that would be you,
sunshine.
Heaping ridicule on preposterous ideas? Welcome to the marketplace.
Try providing evidence, examples, explanations...you know, all that
stuff.
It will also help if you will not lapse into your knee-jerk "you
disagree with me so you are a proven liar about the holocaust", and
"you deny free will because you disagree with me" tantrums. You
*still* have no idea what I beleive...demonstrated by the silly stuff
of which you accuse me...
JFG, what do you think "...and then groupthink", means? And, to what,
in your mind, and in this instance, does it refer?
> Fact is freedom plays no role in evolutionist ideas about human beings
> even, see Dennet, Cosmides, Tooby, Darwin, Heackel, etc
wrong, about Dennet, but you like to keep telling lies about him so
that you can use him as a whipping boy.
And if, for instance, Cosmides sees the will as constrained by her
concept of evolutionary biology, what daft piece of careless
scholarship (or, more likely, need for character assassination) leads
you to declare her views as representative?
You have also demonstrated how stupid your ideas about Darwin are...
> That Dennet can liken free will to the workings of a thermostat, and
> get away with it,
You are aware that I am aware it is a lie. You keep trotting it out,
because it makes you sound "intellectual", and given you predilection
for abuse, implies that you will curse and vilify anyone who
disagrees...is THAT what you meant by "intellectual violence"? Your
own tactics? You could stop, you know...
> means that a logic of alternative results in the
> moment means absolutely nothing to Darwinists.
thinking the same, when even a superficial perusal of this very forum
would indicate that supporters of ToE disagree with each other,
frequently, vigorously, and eloquently. Even about being referred to
collectively as "Darwinists".
But that's too difficult for you to comprehend, having to do all that
reading, and all...
Lies are so much easier, no?
Syamsu
Jun 15, 2012, 4:04:29 PM6/15/12
to
accept any theory based on a logic of freedom, and instead debate is
about me.
Slow Vehicle
Jun 15, 2012, 5:46:32 PM6/15/12
to
YOU are the one claiming that "all 'Darwinists' reject any theory
based on a logic of freedom." without any support. At all.
Of course, my responses are to you--you are the one telling the lie.
You are the one assuming a monolithic 'Darwinist' _realpolitik_ that
does not exist.
You are the one using 'Darwinist' to mean, "Someone I feel justified
in having contempt for" even though you clearly know very, very little
about the range of opinions held by those who understand and accept
ToE.
You are the one playing the intellectual Rodney King card while
simultaneously being as abusive and contentious as the anonymity of
the internet lets you feel as if you can get away with.
Try discussing an actual issue, without lies, without made-up straw
men, without misrepresentation--who knows? You might even get a
dialogue going, if you demonstrate yourself worthy of engaging...but
you have a huge hole of your own digging, out of which to hoist
yourself...
Syamsu
Jun 15, 2012, 7:37:36 PM6/15/12
to
On Jun 15, 9:06 pm, Ymir <agis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <nando-612264bb-1e5e-4c16-abab-80d935a0a...@8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
Dennet first proposed a 2 stage model where there was some role for
"inherent indeterminacy" in free will, which he called random, but he
then said it was unneccessary. He argued that "could have" always
required a different state, so to say, i could have won if i had
thought of that other move, but the fact is I did not think that. He
likened free will to the workings of a thermostat, and argued that
logically to make sense of it's function we have to say the thermostat
chooses. He then said that people are not ready to face this fact.
What creationists are talking about focuses solely on decisionmaking,
the act where an alternative is realized, which is what Dennet calls
randomness. That is freedom, because an alternative result in the
moment is possible. One can build up a model of such decisionmaking to
sophistication, one can distinguish dna being decided as a whole, or
dna decided in bits. The evidence indicates, for as far as creationist
theory goes, that dna is generally decided as a whole, and not in
bits.
Only Gould once used the logic of freedom in his theory, talking about
turningpoints in evolution, explicitly making clear that it meant it
could turn out another way in the moment. That if evolution was run
again, it would turn out differently.
Professional biologists use a Dennet definition for free will, which
is not dependent on alternative results in the moment. Instead they
explain choosing as calculating an optimum, such as when 2 factors
cause behaviour then 1 factor has more weight, and the organism is
forced to act in accordance with the factor with more weight. This
sorting out of factors is what they call choosing.
Also atheism is coupled with a denial of freedom. For a logic where an
alternative result in the moment is possible, we cannot point to any
cause forcing the result. So we get a different category than causes,
which is agency. Agency cannot be established as fact like a cause
can. Atheists generally don't accept any category for which there can
be no evidence.
Mr Dunsapy, and the rest of creationists, we are within reason with
our belief in creation. Not completely evidenced yes, but rational,
credible, and in line with much evidence. And to deny freedom
altogether is not within reasonability, that is a philosophical fancy.
So it means scrutiny of creationism must be limited to the evidence of
what decisions were made in forming life, and not go as far as denying
any decisions were made in forming life.
> In article
> <nando-612264bb-1e5e-4c16-abab-80d935a0a...@8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
"inherent indeterminacy" in free will, which he called random, but he
then said it was unneccessary. He argued that "could have" always
required a different state, so to say, i could have won if i had
thought of that other move, but the fact is I did not think that. He
likened free will to the workings of a thermostat, and argued that
logically to make sense of it's function we have to say the thermostat
chooses. He then said that people are not ready to face this fact.
What creationists are talking about focuses solely on decisionmaking,
the act where an alternative is realized, which is what Dennet calls
randomness. That is freedom, because an alternative result in the
moment is possible. One can build up a model of such decisionmaking to
sophistication, one can distinguish dna being decided as a whole, or
dna decided in bits. The evidence indicates, for as far as creationist
theory goes, that dna is generally decided as a whole, and not in
bits.
Only Gould once used the logic of freedom in his theory, talking about
turningpoints in evolution, explicitly making clear that it meant it
could turn out another way in the moment. That if evolution was run
again, it would turn out differently.
Professional biologists use a Dennet definition for free will, which
is not dependent on alternative results in the moment. Instead they
explain choosing as calculating an optimum, such as when 2 factors
cause behaviour then 1 factor has more weight, and the organism is
forced to act in accordance with the factor with more weight. This
sorting out of factors is what they call choosing.
Also atheism is coupled with a denial of freedom. For a logic where an
alternative result in the moment is possible, we cannot point to any
cause forcing the result. So we get a different category than causes,
which is agency. Agency cannot be established as fact like a cause
can. Atheists generally don't accept any category for which there can
be no evidence.
Mr Dunsapy, and the rest of creationists, we are within reason with
our belief in creation. Not completely evidenced yes, but rational,
credible, and in line with much evidence. And to deny freedom
altogether is not within reasonability, that is a philosophical fancy.
So it means scrutiny of creationism must be limited to the evidence of
what decisions were made in forming life, and not go as far as denying
any decisions were made in forming life.
Slow Vehicle
Jun 15, 2012, 8:31:33 PM6/15/12
to
<snip>
> Dennet first proposed a 2 stage model where there was some role for
> "inherent indeterminacy" in free will, which he called random, but he
> then said it was unneccessary. He argued that "could have" always
> required a different state, so to say, i could have won if i had
> thought of that other move, but the fact is I did not think that. He
> likened free will to the workings of a thermostat, and argued that
> logically to make sense of it's function we have to say the thermostat
> chooses. He then said that people are not ready to face this fact.
...not bad, overall. A bit simplistic, but at least not intentionally
dishonest. You'll notice that even you, sticking to the facts, were
unable to claim that Dennett held that thermostats make decisions, as
you once claimed, as "a matter of fact".
> What creationists are talking about focuses solely on decisionmaking,
> the act where an alternative is realized, which is what Dennet calls
> randomness. That is freedom, because an alternative result in the
> moment is possible. One can build up a model of such decisionmaking to
> sophistication, one can distinguish dna being decided as a whole, or
> dna decided in bits. The evidence indicates, for as far as creationist
> theory goes, that dna is generally decided as a whole, and not in
> bits.
...I think that it is a long stretch to claim that main-stream
creationists, like Behe and the boys, give a rat's about "agency", or
decision making. They are, instead, more concerned with disproving
ToE (instead of, for instance supporting their own particular flavor
of creationism). The only thing upon which they are consistently
unified is that ToE is simply wrong, without any agreement as to why,
or how, it is so.
I also disagree that main-stream creationists care about "freedom", as
most of the theistic bunch claim to sublimate their will to the "will
of god" (which is how they support creationism, without appealing to
fact).
...and you were doing really well, and I appreciate it--then you
completely drop the ball. DNA is, in fact, copied codon-by-codon. In
the act of replication, there is no overarching plan, just the
chemical jigsaw of co-ordinate bases. This is one of the reasons
mutations happen. Would you mind providing me with "the evidence"
that you claim demonstrates that DNA is "decided as a whole"? I'd
like to pursue that...
> Only Gould once used the logic of freedom in his theory, talking about
> turningpoints in evolution, explicitly making clear that it meant it
> could turn out another way in the moment. That if evolution was run
> again, it would turn out differently.
Gould frequently pointed out that the results of evolution were
contingent--you cannot, for instance, observe the Burgess Shale fauna
and use their characteristics to predict which ones will, in fact, be
successful (or which ones did, in fact, give rise to modern forms).
But wait--Gould is an ur-evolutionist, a defender of ToE, what you
usually call a :"Darwinist". Don't they ALL, uniformly and without
exception, according to you, deny freedom? What gives?
> Professional biologists use a Dennet definition for free will,
which
> is not dependent on alternative results in the moment. Instead they
> explain choosing as calculating an optimum, such as when 2 factors
> cause behaviour then 1 factor has more weight, and the organism is
> forced to act in accordance with the factor with more weight. This
> sorting out of factors is what they call choosing.
I am sorry that this is going to offend you, but I must point out that
you are acting as if there is only one viewpoint held by "professional
biologists". Is there a specific set, or school of professional
biologists to which you refer?
> Also atheism is coupled with a denial of freedom.
Now this is just wrong. In my experience, most "atheists" choose
their position based on their freedom to choose--to make decisions
about the lack of existence of gods. YMMV...
>For a logic where an
> alternative result in the moment is possible, we cannot point to any
> cause forcing the result. So we get a different category than causes,
> which is agency.
...and this is just word salad. Just because you cannot identify what
you consider a satisfactory cause for a person to choose atheism (or,
for that matter, cannot identify what you would consider a
satisfactory cause for a person to choose theism), does not imply that
a cause is not present. While many people may be content to be led, I
know several people, myself included, who have constructed their
metaphysics by careful choice--deciding, as it were, to act rather
than be acted upon.
> Agency cannot be established as fact like a cause can.
Then how is it established? Really--what is it, if it cannot be
established as a fact? is all agency just opinion? What about when
your opinion differs from another agent's?
> Atheists generally don't accept any category for which there can
> be no evidence.
This is not a characteristic limited to atheists.
> Mr Dunsapy, and the rest of creationists, we are within reason with
> our belief in creation.
In your opinion. On the other hand, it seems to me to be the height
of unreason to reject the objective completely. I'm glad you have
your faith--but don't try to tell me that your beliefs should be more
convincing to me than objective evidence.
> Not completely evidenced yes,
...or evidenced at all...
> but rational,
...and here I must disagree. It seems to me that denying observable,
objective reality is not rational. At best, it makes knowledge
impossible without revelation; at extremes, it results in ironclad
solipsism, and gnosticism. Again, YMMV, but I don't see how it is
"rational" to deny objective reality.
> credible, and in line with much evidence.
Please give one objective instance of evidence for creation. If
everything is designed, why is it designed to LOOK so developed?
Seriously, what evidence do you have for creationism?
> And to deny freedom altogether
...which is not a tenet of ToE...see above...
>is not within reasonability, that is a philosophical fancy.
But to deny reality, and to deride those who seek objective
verification, is? Odd...
> So it means scrutiny of creationism must be limited to the evidence of
> what decisions were made in forming life, and not go as far as denying
> any decisions were made in forming life.
Rather sweeping conclusion. I would say that creationism faces the
same burden of proof as ToE...what does observed reality indicate? Do
things look divinely designed, or cobbled together?
Who (or what) is supposed to be making the "decisions" to which you
refer? If you mean, "The decisions 'god' (or 'the designer', or 'the
creator', or whatever) made in creating the universe", you are simply
assuming your conclusion, and no discussion is possible. If you mean
"the decisions organisms make in becoming what they are", you have
fallen into a weak Lamarkinaism, unsupported by observation. If you
mean "the decisions the cosmos made, in selecting life-forms to
favor", you have drifted off into a ridiculous animism, and no further
discussion is possible.,
Can you clarify what you mean by "what decisions were made in forming
life"?
Thanks!
> Dennet first proposed a 2 stage model where there was some role for
> "inherent indeterminacy" in free will, which he called random, but he
> then said it was unneccessary. He argued that "could have" always
> required a different state, so to say, i could have won if i had
> thought of that other move, but the fact is I did not think that. He
> likened free will to the workings of a thermostat, and argued that
> logically to make sense of it's function we have to say the thermostat
> chooses. He then said that people are not ready to face this fact.
dishonest. You'll notice that even you, sticking to the facts, were
unable to claim that Dennett held that thermostats make decisions, as
you once claimed, as "a matter of fact".
> What creationists are talking about focuses solely on decisionmaking,
> the act where an alternative is realized, which is what Dennet calls
> randomness. That is freedom, because an alternative result in the
> moment is possible. One can build up a model of such decisionmaking to
> sophistication, one can distinguish dna being decided as a whole, or
> dna decided in bits. The evidence indicates, for as far as creationist
> theory goes, that dna is generally decided as a whole, and not in
> bits.
creationists, like Behe and the boys, give a rat's about "agency", or
decision making. They are, instead, more concerned with disproving
ToE (instead of, for instance supporting their own particular flavor
of creationism). The only thing upon which they are consistently
unified is that ToE is simply wrong, without any agreement as to why,
or how, it is so.
I also disagree that main-stream creationists care about "freedom", as
most of the theistic bunch claim to sublimate their will to the "will
of god" (which is how they support creationism, without appealing to
fact).
...and you were doing really well, and I appreciate it--then you
completely drop the ball. DNA is, in fact, copied codon-by-codon. In
the act of replication, there is no overarching plan, just the
chemical jigsaw of co-ordinate bases. This is one of the reasons
mutations happen. Would you mind providing me with "the evidence"
that you claim demonstrates that DNA is "decided as a whole"? I'd
like to pursue that...
> Only Gould once used the logic of freedom in his theory, talking about
> turningpoints in evolution, explicitly making clear that it meant it
> could turn out another way in the moment. That if evolution was run
> again, it would turn out differently.
contingent--you cannot, for instance, observe the Burgess Shale fauna
and use their characteristics to predict which ones will, in fact, be
successful (or which ones did, in fact, give rise to modern forms).
But wait--Gould is an ur-evolutionist, a defender of ToE, what you
usually call a :"Darwinist". Don't they ALL, uniformly and without
exception, according to you, deny freedom? What gives?
> Professional biologists use a Dennet definition for free will,
which
> is not dependent on alternative results in the moment. Instead they
> explain choosing as calculating an optimum, such as when 2 factors
> cause behaviour then 1 factor has more weight, and the organism is
> forced to act in accordance with the factor with more weight. This
> sorting out of factors is what they call choosing.
you are acting as if there is only one viewpoint held by "professional
biologists". Is there a specific set, or school of professional
biologists to which you refer?
> Also atheism is coupled with a denial of freedom.
their position based on their freedom to choose--to make decisions
about the lack of existence of gods. YMMV...
>For a logic where an
> alternative result in the moment is possible, we cannot point to any
> cause forcing the result. So we get a different category than causes,
> which is agency.
you consider a satisfactory cause for a person to choose atheism (or,
for that matter, cannot identify what you would consider a
satisfactory cause for a person to choose theism), does not imply that
a cause is not present. While many people may be content to be led, I
know several people, myself included, who have constructed their
metaphysics by careful choice--deciding, as it were, to act rather
than be acted upon.
> Agency cannot be established as fact like a cause can.
established as a fact? is all agency just opinion? What about when
your opinion differs from another agent's?
> Atheists generally don't accept any category for which there can
> be no evidence.
> Mr Dunsapy, and the rest of creationists, we are within reason with
> our belief in creation.
of unreason to reject the objective completely. I'm glad you have
your faith--but don't try to tell me that your beliefs should be more
convincing to me than objective evidence.
> Not completely evidenced yes,
...or evidenced at all...
> but rational,
...and here I must disagree. It seems to me that denying observable,
objective reality is not rational. At best, it makes knowledge
impossible without revelation; at extremes, it results in ironclad
solipsism, and gnosticism. Again, YMMV, but I don't see how it is
"rational" to deny objective reality.
> credible, and in line with much evidence.
everything is designed, why is it designed to LOOK so developed?
Seriously, what evidence do you have for creationism?
> And to deny freedom altogether
>is not within reasonability, that is a philosophical fancy.
verification, is? Odd...
> So it means scrutiny of creationism must be limited to the evidence of
> what decisions were made in forming life, and not go as far as denying
> any decisions were made in forming life.
same burden of proof as ToE...what does observed reality indicate? Do
things look divinely designed, or cobbled together?
Who (or what) is supposed to be making the "decisions" to which you
refer? If you mean, "The decisions 'god' (or 'the designer', or 'the
creator', or whatever) made in creating the universe", you are simply
assuming your conclusion, and no discussion is possible. If you mean
"the decisions organisms make in becoming what they are", you have
fallen into a weak Lamarkinaism, unsupported by observation. If you
mean "the decisions the cosmos made, in selecting life-forms to
favor", you have drifted off into a ridiculous animism, and no further
discussion is possible.,
Can you clarify what you mean by "what decisions were made in forming
life"?
Thanks!
Dana Tweedy
Jun 15, 2012, 9:17:26 PM6/15/12
to
>snip
>>
>>> The organisms look designed, hence we theorize they are designed.
>>
>> How do they "look designed"?
>
> The claim is: they appear designed.
But the appearance is deceiving.
>
>> How do you test your conclusion?
>
> Our conclusion is tested true by the fact that it is logical (design
> implies Designer)
As already shown to you, it's not logical to assume one's own
conclusion. The appearance of design does not always require, or imply
an actual creator. Natural processes often give the image of "design".
> and by the fact that "Living organisms, Paley
> argued, are even more complicated than watches,
However that argument fails, when one realizes that complexity is not
only produced by manufacture.
> 'in a degree which
> exceeds all computation.'"
>
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
Paley was not aware of a mechanism that produces the appearance of
design. Darwin discovered such a mechanism.
>
> In other words we find or discover in species a far greater degree of
> man-made design.
Actually, one does not "discover" any degree of design in species. One
only finds the appearance of design. That appearance is produced by the
process of evolution.
DJT
>>
>>> The organisms look designed, hence we theorize they are designed.
>>
>> How do they "look designed"?
>
> The claim is: they appear designed.
>
>> How do you test your conclusion?
>
> Our conclusion is tested true by the fact that it is logical (design
> implies Designer)
conclusion. The appearance of design does not always require, or imply
an actual creator. Natural processes often give the image of "design".
> and by the fact that "Living organisms, Paley
> argued, are even more complicated than watches,
only produced by manufacture.
> 'in a degree which
> exceeds all computation.'"
>
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
design. Darwin discovered such a mechanism.
>
> In other words we find or discover in species a far greater degree of
> man-made design.
only finds the appearance of design. That appearance is produced by the
process of evolution.
DJT
Ymir
Jun 16, 2012, 10:02:21 AM6/16/12
to
In article
<nando-f4c9ad96-cec9-4...@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>,
You didn't actually answer my question. I asked whether you've *read*
Dennett (that is, his actual works rather than second-hand descriptions).
Yes, he discusses thermostats, but you entirely misunderstand his point.
(Also, it's a bit peculiar that you so vehemently oppose the idea that
thermostats have free will (which isn't really Dennett's position) when
you freely ascribe it to falling rocks, orbiting planets, quantum
events, and a plethora of other inanimate phenomena).
André
<nando-f4c9ad96-cec9-4...@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>,
Dennett (that is, his actual works rather than second-hand descriptions).
Yes, he discusses thermostats, but you entirely misunderstand his point.
(Also, it's a bit peculiar that you so vehemently oppose the idea that
thermostats have free will (which isn't really Dennett's position) when
you freely ascribe it to falling rocks, orbiting planets, quantum
events, and a plethora of other inanimate phenomena).
André
Ray Martinez
Jun 17, 2012, 5:39:38 PM6/17/12
to
On Jun 14, 11:50 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[....]
>
> > > > The organisms look designed, hence we theorize they are designed.
>
> > > How do they "look designed"?
>
> > The claim is: they appear designed.
>
> Which is why I asked "How do they 'look designed'?" What traits or
> feaures indicate "design"?
All of them.
> Personal incredulity or arguments of
> ignorance, and personal religious beliefs don't count.
>
Design is not a religious doctrine. One does not need to undergo a
religious conversion in order to see it. Many non-Theists (Deists) see
design-in-nature.
>
>
> > > How do you test your conclusion?
>
> > Our conclusion is tested true by the fact that it is logical (design
> > implies Designer) and by the fact that "Living organisms, Paley
> > argued, are even more complicated than watches, 'in a degree which
> > exceeds all computation.'"
>
> Sorry, but you are assuming your conclusion, with a helping of
> argument from incredulity. That is not sufficient evidence, and
> certainly does not test your conclusion. Try again.
>
>
>
> >http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
>
> > In other words we find or discover in species a far greater degree of
> > man-made design.
>
> Not good enough. Again, how do you test the conclusion?
>
> Boikat
First test: Logic.
The proposition: design = Designer is logical.
Ray
[....]
>
> > > > The organisms look designed, hence we theorize they are designed.
>
> > > How do they "look designed"?
>
> > The claim is: they appear designed.
>
> Which is why I asked "How do they 'look designed'?" What traits or
All of them.
> Personal incredulity or arguments of
> ignorance, and personal religious beliefs don't count.
>
religious conversion in order to see it. Many non-Theists (Deists) see
design-in-nature.
>
>
> > > How do you test your conclusion?
>
> > Our conclusion is tested true by the fact that it is logical (design
> > implies Designer) and by the fact that "Living organisms, Paley
> > argued, are even more complicated than watches, 'in a degree which
> > exceeds all computation.'"
>
> Sorry, but you are assuming your conclusion, with a helping of
> argument from incredulity. That is not sufficient evidence, and
> certainly does not test your conclusion. Try again.
>
>
>
> >http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
>
> > In other words we find or discover in species a far greater degree of
> > man-made design.
>
> Not good enough. Again, how do you test the conclusion?
>
> Boikat
The proposition: design = Designer is logical.
Ray
Mark Isaak
Jun 17, 2012, 8:38:20 PM6/17/12
to
modification, and the selection of some varieties over others -- is
basic to how design is done. That is why evolved things have some
qualities that look designed.
But design includes things besides evolution -- such as plans and
prototypes, and reuse of features from distant lineages --, and those
other things do not show up in life. Evolution does not imply design,
but design implies evolution. If you accept design, you accept evolution.
Most creationists, however, do not really accept design. They accept
magic fiat creation and call it, falsely, design.
jillery
Jun 17, 2012, 8:57:26 PM6/17/12
to
UC
Jun 17, 2012, 9:39:34 PM6/17/12
to
Rolf
Jun 18, 2012, 8:43:41 AM6/18/12
to
>>> The organisms look designed, hence we theorize they are designed.
>>
>> How do they "look designed"?
>
> The claim is: they appear designed.
>
>>
>> How do they "look designed"?
>
> The claim is: they appear designed.
>
>> How do you test your conclusion?
>
> Our conclusion is tested true by the fact that it is logical (design
> implies Designer) and by the fact that "Living organisms, Paley
> argued, are even more complicated than watches, 'in a degree which
> exceeds all computation.'"
>
Paley was wrong, you can't compare mechanics with biology.
>
> Our conclusion is tested true by the fact that it is logical (design
> implies Designer) and by the fact that "Living organisms, Paley
> argued, are even more complicated than watches, 'in a degree which
> exceeds all computation.'"
>
It's the same with computers: No mechanical marvel comes half near the
wonders of electronics at work in our silicon c.
And yet, that's just electronics. Biology is chemistry, the development from
egg to maturity is a marvellous chemical process with no outside
intervention, chemisntry manages all by itsel.
Ever seen self replicating watches?
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
>
> In other words we find or discover in species a far greater degree of
> man-made design.
>
Ray Martinez
Jun 18, 2012, 5:03:36 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 17, 5:38 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
Mark: You are as ignorant and confused as they come. This is why I do
not respond to the vast majority of your replies. I respond to this
one because someone needs to inform you of the fact (concerning your
confusion and ignorance).
Ray
wrote:
not respond to the vast majority of your replies. I respond to this
one because someone needs to inform you of the fact (concerning your
confusion and ignorance).
Ray
Syamsu
Jun 18, 2012, 6:19:18 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 2:38 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
More bullsit to avoid freedom.
wrote:
Syamsu
Jun 18, 2012, 6:18:27 PM6/18/12
to
> <nando-f4c9ad96-cec9-44ee-b390-48eefee2d...@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
You write a lot of nonsense to avoid the fact that you treat freedom
as an irrellevancy in the universe, and oppose all theories which give
freedom a central role in how things work.
as an irrellevancy in the universe, and oppose all theories which give
freedom a central role in how things work.
Dana Tweedy
Jun 19, 2012, 12:09:47 AM6/19/12
to
On 6/17/12 3:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 14, 11:50 pm, Boikat<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>
>>>>> The organisms look designed, hence we theorize they are designed.
>>
>>>> How do they "look designed"?
>>
>>> The claim is: they appear designed.
>>
>> Which is why I asked "How do they 'look designed'?" What traits or
>> feaures indicate "design"?
>
> All of them.
So, you have no way to distinguish between design, and not design.
> On Jun 14, 11:50 pm, Boikat<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>
>>>>> The organisms look designed, hence we theorize they are designed.
>>
>>>> How do they "look designed"?
>>
>>> The claim is: they appear designed.
>>
>> Which is why I asked "How do they 'look designed'?" What traits or
>> feaures indicate "design"?
>
> All of them.
>
>> Personal incredulity or arguments of
>> ignorance, and personal religious beliefs don't count.
>>
>
> Design is not a religious doctrine.
> One does not need to undergo a
> religious conversion in order to see it. Many non-Theists (Deists) see
> design-in-nature.
one infers design from the presence of order, or complexity. This is an
illogical inference, as other things than "design" can produce this
appearance.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> How do you test your conclusion?
>>
>>> Our conclusion is tested true by the fact that it is logical (design
>>> implies Designer) and by the fact that "Living organisms, Paley
>>> argued, are even more complicated than watches, 'in a degree which
>>> exceeds all computation.'"
>>
>> Sorry, but you are assuming your conclusion, with a helping of
>> argument from incredulity. That is not sufficient evidence, and
>> certainly does not test your conclusion. Try again.
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
>>
>>> In other words we find or discover in species a far greater degree of
>>> man-made design.
>>
>> Not good enough. Again, how do you test the conclusion?
>>
>> Boikat
>
> First test: Logic.
>
> The proposition: design = Designer is logical.
appearance of design.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Jun 19, 2012, 12:11:47 AM6/19/12
to
> This is why I do
> not respond to the vast majority of your replies.
nothing to do with it?
> I respond to this
> one because someone needs to inform you of the fact (concerning your
> confusion and ignorance).
DJT
Ymir
Jun 19, 2012, 3:50:00 AM6/19/12
to
In article
<nando-ff955133-e72e-4...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
,
> > > > > That Dennet can liken free will to the workings of a thermostat, and
> > > > > get away with it, means that a logic of alternative results in the
> > > > > moment means absolutely nothing to Darwinists.
> >
> > > > Out of curiosity, have you actually *read* any Dennett?
> >
> > > > André
> >
> > > Dennet first proposed a 2 stage model where there was some role for
> > > "inherent indeterminacy" in free will, which he called random, but he
> > > then said it was unneccessary. He argued that "could have" always
> > > required a different state, so to say, i could have won if i had
> > > thought of that other move, but the fact is I did not think that. He
> > > likened free will to the workings of a thermostat, and argued that
> > > logically to make sense of it's function we have to say the thermostat
> > > chooses. He then said that people are not ready to face this fact.
> >
> > You didn't actually answer my question. I asked whether you've *read*
> > Dennett (that is, his actual works rather than second-hand descriptions).
> >
> > Yes, he discusses thermostats, but you entirely misunderstand his point.
> >
> > (Also, it's a bit peculiar that you so vehemently oppose the idea that
> > thermostats have free will (which isn't really Dennett's position) when
> > you freely ascribe it to falling rocks, orbiting planets, quantum
> > events, and a plethora of other inanimate phenomena).
> >
> > André
>
> You write a lot of nonsense to avoid the fact that you treat freedom
> as an irrellevancy in the universe, and oppose all theories which give
> freedom a central role in how things work.
In other words, you don't feel like actually answering the question.
I'll take that as a "no".
André
<nando-ff955133-e72e-4...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
,
Syamsu <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 4:02 pm, Ymir <agis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <nando-f4c9ad96-cec9-44ee-b390-48eefee2d...@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >,
> > Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 15, 9:06 pm, Ymir <agis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <nando-612264bb-1e5e-4c16-abab-80d935a0a...@8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snippage>
> On Jun 16, 4:02 pm, Ymir <agis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <nando-f4c9ad96-cec9-44ee-b390-48eefee2d...@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >,
> > Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 15, 9:06 pm, Ymir <agis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <nando-612264bb-1e5e-4c16-abab-80d935a0a...@8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > That Dennet can liken free will to the workings of a thermostat, and
> > > > > get away with it, means that a logic of alternative results in the
> > > > > moment means absolutely nothing to Darwinists.
> >
> > > > Out of curiosity, have you actually *read* any Dennett?
> >
> > > > André
> >
> > > Dennet first proposed a 2 stage model where there was some role for
> > > "inherent indeterminacy" in free will, which he called random, but he
> > > then said it was unneccessary. He argued that "could have" always
> > > required a different state, so to say, i could have won if i had
> > > thought of that other move, but the fact is I did not think that. He
> > > likened free will to the workings of a thermostat, and argued that
> > > logically to make sense of it's function we have to say the thermostat
> > > chooses. He then said that people are not ready to face this fact.
> >
> > You didn't actually answer my question. I asked whether you've *read*
> > Dennett (that is, his actual works rather than second-hand descriptions).
> >
> > Yes, he discusses thermostats, but you entirely misunderstand his point.
> >
> > (Also, it's a bit peculiar that you so vehemently oppose the idea that
> > thermostats have free will (which isn't really Dennett's position) when
> > you freely ascribe it to falling rocks, orbiting planets, quantum
> > events, and a plethora of other inanimate phenomena).
> >
> > André
>
> You write a lot of nonsense to avoid the fact that you treat freedom
> as an irrellevancy in the universe, and oppose all theories which give
> freedom a central role in how things work.
I'll take that as a "no".
André
Syamsu
Jun 19, 2012, 7:27:43 AM6/19/12
to
> <nando-ff955133-e72e-4b05-a763-37e731124...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
> > You write a lot of nonsense to avoid the fact that you treat freedom
> > as an irrellevancy in the universe, and oppose all theories which give
> > freedom a central role in how things work.
>
> In other words, you don't feel like actually answering the question.
> I'll take that as a "no".
You write still even more nonsense to avoid dealing with freedom in
the universe in a reasonable way.
> > You write a lot of nonsense to avoid the fact that you treat freedom
> > as an irrellevancy in the universe, and oppose all theories which give
> > freedom a central role in how things work.
>
> In other words, you don't feel like actually answering the question.
> I'll take that as a "no".
the universe in a reasonable way.
Syamsu
Jun 19, 2012, 7:39:40 AM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 6:09 am, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/12 3:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Design is not a religious doctrine.
>
> It is when you assume the designer to be a supernatural being.
All design goes by free will, it requires a human spirit or holy
> On 6/17/12 3:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Design is not a religious doctrine.
>
> It is when you assume the designer to be a supernatural being.
spirit to do the choosing. It is essentially super-natural, the
spirit decides over the natural, the spirit decides over the brain. In
a choice new information is created, the information which way the
choice turned out, information which did not previously exist in the
universe. One cannot derive the information, from the previously
existing information, and have it be new. So the spiritual domain is
just as common as the material domain. For every inherent quantum
indeterminacy it may be asked, in what spirit was the result chosen?
Scientists who don't posit a spiritual domain doing the choosing
commit the naturalistic fallacy of mixing morality with science. They
are the kind of social darwinists who removed all dignity from
humanity by ignoring the human spirit, calculating human worth in
terms of genetics and survival, and then perpetrated the holocaust.
Mark Isaak
Jun 19, 2012, 11:57:56 AM6/19/12
to
On 6/18/12 2:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 17, 5:38 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>> [...]
> On Jun 17, 5:38 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>> Design is evolutionary. Evolution -- that is, reproduction with
>> modification, and the selection of some varieties over others -- is
>> basic to how design is done. That is why evolved things have some
>> qualities that look designed.
>>
>> But design includes things besides evolution -- such as plans and
>> prototypes, and reuse of features from distant lineages --, and those
>> other things do not show up in life. Evolution does not imply design,
>> but design implies evolution. If you accept design, you accept evolution.
>>
>> Most creationists, however, do not really accept design. They accept
>> magic fiat creation and call it, falsely, design.
>
>> modification, and the selection of some varieties over others -- is
>> basic to how design is done. That is why evolved things have some
>> qualities that look designed.
>>
>> But design includes things besides evolution -- such as plans and
>> prototypes, and reuse of features from distant lineages --, and those
>> other things do not show up in life. Evolution does not imply design,
>> but design implies evolution. If you accept design, you accept evolution.
>>
>> Most creationists, however, do not really accept design. They accept
>> magic fiat creation and call it, falsely, design.
>
> Mark: You are as ignorant and confused as they come. This is why I do
> not respond to the vast majority of your replies.
Looks to me like you do not respond because you can't. You simply do
> not respond to the vast majority of your replies.
not know what design actually looks like, beyond its most superficial
characteristics.
> I respond to this one ...
No, you didn't. You hit the "reply" button and wrote something that
disregarded my post entirely.
> because someone needs to inform you of the fact (concerning your
> confusion and ignorance).
Boikat
Jun 19, 2012, 1:10:42 PM6/19/12
to
"freedom" "choosing', and all your other obsesive catch phrases, which
you string together into barely comprehendible sentances are nothing
but meaningless crap. Your asinine accusations about "not propperly
acknowledging freedom" (as you use it, "perpetrated the Holocaust" is
nothing but hate speach on your part, and is an attempt at guilt by
association (which fails since it's a lie to begin with).
Boikat
Boikat
Jun 19, 2012, 1:12:34 PM6/19/12
to
use it, does not apply to the vast majority of the Universe.
Boikat
Syamsu
Jun 19, 2012, 2:48:58 PM6/19/12
to
viewed as an emotionless calculation of genetic worth. People
enslaved to a rationality of survival in which freedom plays no role.
You have not validated subjectivity validated emotions, you only ever
acknowledge facts. What emotions are doing in the universe
functionally, is choose, and therefore emotions can only ever be
identified with a way of choosing. It is a cliche truth, yet you deny
it and thereby defile the human spirit. You kill of emotions, full
stop.
Syamsu
Jun 19, 2012, 3:00:43 PM6/19/12
to
are available. If things could have turned out differently, then there
was freedom in the way it turned out, there was an analternative. This
freedom applies throughout the universe, and is built up to
sophistication in the decisionmaking which forms life. Your idea of
freedom is just garbage, it doesnt have anything to do with
alternative results being available in the moment even. It is nonsense
which is why you never apply the word freedom to anything in the
universe. You have no theory at all in which freedom plays a central
role, you simply ignore it. And this was standard teaching amongst
scientists, that inherent quantum uncertainty had no significance at
the macro level. But that makes no sense, and further when you look at
scientists work it is clear that most do not explore theories based on
freedom like intelligent design, simply because they think all science
must be with a logic of.cause and effect.
Boikat
Jun 19, 2012, 3:49:50 PM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 2:00 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:12 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 6:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 19, 9:50 am, Ymir <agis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <nando-ff955133-e72e-4b05-a763-37e731124...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > You write a lot of nonsense to avoid the fact that you treat freedom
> > > > > as an irrellevancy in the universe, and oppose all theories which give
> > > > > freedom a central role in how things work.
>
> > > > In other words, you don't feel like actually answering the question.
> > > > I'll take that as a "no".
>
> > > You write still even more nonsense to avoid dealing with freedom in
> > > the universe in a reasonable way.
>
> > What would you know about "reasonable"? Besides, "freedom", as you
> > use it, does not apply to the vast majority of the Universe.
>
> > Boikat
>
> Freedom as I use it is that in the moment several alternative results
> are available.....<snip usuall blathercrap>
> On Jun 19, 7:12 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 6:27 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 19, 9:50 am, Ymir <agis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <nando-ff955133-e72e-4b05-a763-37e731124...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > You write a lot of nonsense to avoid the fact that you treat freedom
> > > > > as an irrellevancy in the universe, and oppose all theories which give
> > > > > freedom a central role in how things work.
>
> > > > In other words, you don't feel like actually answering the question.
> > > > I'll take that as a "no".
>
> > > You write still even more nonsense to avoid dealing with freedom in
> > > the universe in a reasonable way.
>
> > What would you know about "reasonable"? Besides, "freedom", as you
> > use it, does not apply to the vast majority of the Universe.
>
> > Boikat
>
> Freedom as I use it is that in the moment several alternative results
No, the way you use it is to equate "freedom" with free will, the
soul and the "spirit realm", and you apply it to rocks and other lumps
of inanimate matter. Free will requires a mind. Lumps of inanimate
matter and rocks do not have minds, no matter how many voices you hear
inside your head. Get over it. The first step in recovery is
admitting to yourself you have a problem, and if you think rocks have
free will, and can turn out one way or the other from moment to
moment, you have a problem.
Boikat
Syamsu
Jun 20, 2012, 2:38:13 AM6/20/12
to
killing of emotions in a very direct way, you have been warned well
enough this is what you are in effect doing. Also a relatively minor
point it seems, you are surpressing all knowledge in the form of where
there are alternative results in the moment. Those are your works,
that is what you will get paid for come the final judgement.
Boikat
Jun 20, 2012, 3:17:18 AM6/20/12
to
that your assertions are idiotic.
> You are
> killing of emotions in a very direct way, you have been warned well
> enough this is what you are in effect doing.
at all.
> Also a relatively minor
> point it seems, you are surpressing all knowledge in the form of where
> there are alternative results in the moment.
examples of a lump of limestode deciding to turn into a lumpe of
coal? How about a rock deciding to roll up a hill?
> Those are your works,
> that is what you will get paid for come the final judgement.
Boikat
Syamsu
Jun 20, 2012, 5:06:19 AM6/20/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
That rocks have alternative states available in the moment is a fact
of quantum mechanics. You deny freedom is relevant in the universe,
you provide no room for subjectivity, for expression of emotion, you
are the hollywood stereotype of an evil scientist.
Slow Vehicle
Jun 20, 2012, 9:00:48 AM6/20/12
to
Scientist" stereotype.
Boikat
Jun 20, 2012, 1:36:19 PM6/20/12
to
into it.
> You deny freedom is relevant in the universe,
> you provide no room for subjectivity,
that.
> for expression of emotion, you
> are the hollywood stereotype of an evil scientist.
a "scientist" drop you on your head when you were a child, and that's
when your mental development stopped, and you blame all scientists?
Boikat
Boikat
Jun 20, 2012, 1:38:33 PM6/20/12
to
opinion. I'm sure he still think's you are evil too. Just not as
evil as I am, at the moment. ;)
MMmmmwwwwahahahahahaha !!11!11!!!!111!1!!
Boikat
Slow Vehicle
Jun 20, 2012, 2:39:22 PM6/20/12
to
tied behind my back...
Syamsu
Jun 20, 2012, 2:54:54 PM6/20/12
to
in the universe for any version of freedom. You have no theory where
freedom has any significant role. And you provide no room for
subjectivity in respect to agency of human beings either, you treat
all issues of the human mind as you call it, as matters of objective
fact, including emotions you don't regard subjectively but as matter
of scientific fact. And this means you leave no room for subjectivity
at all.
Slow Vehicle
Jun 20, 2012, 3:23:08 PM6/20/12
to
<snip>
> Whatever, you are lying that you accept freedom as real and relevant
> in the universe for any version of freedom. You have no theory where
> freedom has any significant role. And you provide no room for
> subjectivity in respect to agency of human beings either, you treat
> all issues of the human mind as you call it, as matters of objective
> fact, including emotions you don't regard subjectively but as matter
> of scientific fact. And this means you leave no room for subjectivity
> at all.
...and you have no way of knowing what, if any of this, actually
applies to the poster to whom you are responding--it's just a set of
knee-jerk accusations you spew willy-nilly, choosing to use your free
will to demonstrate that nothing--no fact, notruth, no logic, no
actual circumstance, nothing--is to be allowed with you spewing
vitriol.
And it is clear that acting in this way is your choice. Your
voluntary choice.
Your exercise of agency.
> Whatever, you are lying that you accept freedom as real and relevant
> in the universe for any version of freedom. You have no theory where
> freedom has any significant role. And you provide no room for
> subjectivity in respect to agency of human beings either, you treat
> all issues of the human mind as you call it, as matters of objective
> fact, including emotions you don't regard subjectively but as matter
> of scientific fact. And this means you leave no room for subjectivity
> at all.
applies to the poster to whom you are responding--it's just a set of
knee-jerk accusations you spew willy-nilly, choosing to use your free
will to demonstrate that nothing--no fact, notruth, no logic, no
actual circumstance, nothing--is to be allowed with you spewing
vitriol.
And it is clear that acting in this way is your choice. Your
voluntary choice.
Your exercise of agency.
Boikat
Jun 20, 2012, 4:08:19 PM6/20/12
to
believed your claptrap. It still stands, I accept a certain degree of
freedom exists in the Universe, just not your idiotic usage.
> You have no theory where
> freedom has any significant role.
> And you provide no room for
> subjectivity in respect to agency of human beings either, you treat
> all issues of the human mind as you call it, as matters of objective
> fact, including emotions you don't regard subjectively but as matter
> of scientific fact. And this means you leave no room for subjectivity
> at all.
that can be parsed is the last sentence, and it is a lie.
Boikat
Syamsu
Jun 21, 2012, 7:01:03 AM6/21/12
to
On Jun 20, 10:08 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
valid, but take a look at this science paper which has valid theory
about freedom in the universe.
You play this game where you ridicule my version of freedom, logical
fallacy, and then you pretend for political correctness sake, that you
accept freedom is real. You accept the true and real version of
freedom. Yet you never reference any science paper which contains this
true and real version of freedom, you never say how this true and real
freedom works. This is because it is a complete lie, you don't accept
any freedom is real, you just say the word freedom, and that is how
far you accept freedom is real.
> > You have no theory where
> > freedom has any significant role.
>
> So what?
It's unreasonable, it shows you are ideologically opposed to theories
based on a logic of freedom instead of cause and effect. You are
simply ideologically opposed to intelligent design theory, because it
is based on a logic of freedom instead of force.
> > And you provide no room for
> > subjectivity in respect to agency of human beings either, you treat
> > all issues of the human mind as you call it, as matters of objective
> > fact, including emotions you don't regard subjectively but as matter
> > of scientific fact. And this means you leave no room for subjectivity
> > at all.
>
> You're just tossing stings of words together now, and the only thing
> that can be parsed is the last sentence, and it is a lie.
It is most certainly not a lie, you flat out reject subjectivity as
valid. You are ideologically opposed to accepting the existence of
anything, including emotions, without evidence. And ofcourse,
subjectivity only works without evidence, otherwise with evidence it
is objectivity.
> On Jun 20, 1:54 pm,Syamsu<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Whatever, you are lying that you accept freedom as real and relevant
> > in the universe for any version of freedom.
>
> I would be lying if I believed your inane claptrap and denied that I
> believed your claptrap. It still stands, I accept a certain degree of
> freedom exists in the Universe, just not your idiotic usage.
Funny how you never respond with: your version of freedom is not
> > Whatever, you are lying that you accept freedom as real and relevant
> > in the universe for any version of freedom.
>
> I would be lying if I believed your inane claptrap and denied that I
> believed your claptrap. It still stands, I accept a certain degree of
> freedom exists in the Universe, just not your idiotic usage.
valid, but take a look at this science paper which has valid theory
about freedom in the universe.
You play this game where you ridicule my version of freedom, logical
fallacy, and then you pretend for political correctness sake, that you
accept freedom is real. You accept the true and real version of
freedom. Yet you never reference any science paper which contains this
true and real version of freedom, you never say how this true and real
freedom works. This is because it is a complete lie, you don't accept
any freedom is real, you just say the word freedom, and that is how
far you accept freedom is real.
> > You have no theory where
> > freedom has any significant role.
>
> So what?
based on a logic of freedom instead of cause and effect. You are
simply ideologically opposed to intelligent design theory, because it
is based on a logic of freedom instead of force.
> > And you provide no room for
> > subjectivity in respect to agency of human beings either, you treat
> > all issues of the human mind as you call it, as matters of objective
> > fact, including emotions you don't regard subjectively but as matter
> > of scientific fact. And this means you leave no room for subjectivity
> > at all.
>
> You're just tossing stings of words together now, and the only thing
> that can be parsed is the last sentence, and it is a lie.
valid. You are ideologically opposed to accepting the existence of
anything, including emotions, without evidence. And ofcourse,
subjectivity only works without evidence, otherwise with evidence it
is objectivity.
Boikat
Jun 21, 2012, 2:03:15 PM6/21/12
to
On Jun 21, 6:01 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 10:08 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 1:54 pm,Syamsu<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Whatever, you are lying that you accept freedom as real and relevant
> > > in the universe for any version of freedom.
>
> > I would be lying if I believed your inane claptrap and denied that I
> > believed your claptrap. It still stands, I accept a certain degree of
> > freedom exists in the Universe, just not your idiotic usage.
>
> Funny how you never respond with: your version of freedom is not
> valid, but take a look at this science paper which has valid theory
> about freedom in the universe.
I don't neede no scientific paper to refute your lunacy. Besides,
> On Jun 20, 10:08 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 1:54 pm,Syamsu<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Whatever, you are lying that you accept freedom as real and relevant
> > > in the universe for any version of freedom.
>
> > I would be lying if I believed your inane claptrap and denied that I
> > believed your claptrap. It still stands, I accept a certain degree of
> > freedom exists in the Universe, just not your idiotic usage.
>
> Funny how you never respond with: your version of freedom is not
> valid, but take a look at this science paper which has valid theory
> about freedom in the universe.
it's up to you to support your claims. Please provide a citation fo a
rock deciding to turn out one way or the other, from moment to m oment
would be a good start.
>
> You play this game where you ridicule my version of freedom, logical
> fallacy, and then you pretend for political correctness sake, that you
> accept freedom is real.
"freedom", which you equate to "free will", and then toss in the
"spirit realm" for good measure, *and* claim rock enjoy the same state
of "freedom. That is insane.
> You accept the true and real version of
> freedom.
since you are somewhat insane, but there it is.
> Yet you never reference any science paper which contains this
> true and real version of freedom, you never say how this true and real
> freedom works.
> This is because it is a complete lie, you don't accept
> any freedom is real, you just say the word freedom, and that is how
> far you accept freedom is real.
other from moment to moment. Want to place a bet on who's headed
towards a padded cell? Oh, that's right: They already have one
reserved for you.
>
> > > You have no theory where
> > > freedom has any significant role.
>
> > So what?
>
> It's unreasonable,
> it shows you are ideologically opposed to theories
> based on a logic of freedom instead of cause and effect. You are
> simply ideologically opposed to intelligent design theory, because it
> is based on a logic of freedom instead of force.
pure BS.
>
> > > And you provide no room for
> > > subjectivity in respect to agency of human beings either, you treat
> > > all issues of the human mind as you call it, as matters of objective
> > > fact, including emotions you don't regard subjectively but as matter
> > > of scientific fact. And this means you leave no room for subjectivity
> > > at all.
>
> > You're just tossing stings of words together now, and the only thing
> > that can be parsed is the last sentence, and it is a lie.
>
> It is most certainly not a lie,
> you flat out reject subjectivity as
> valid.
> You are ideologically opposed to accepting the existence of
> anything, including emotions, without evidence.
> And ofcourse,
> subjectivity only works without evidence, otherwise with evidence it
> is objectivity.
puff of logic. That's not my problem.
Boikat
Syamsu
Jun 22, 2012, 11:51:44 AM6/22/12
to
reject subjectivity, and I am obviously also right that your idea
about freedom is that it is just a word.
Boikat
Jun 22, 2012, 4:51:45 PM6/22/12
to
that your spazzoid "subjectivity" screed should be taken seriously.
> and I am right to say you
> reject subjectivity,
the arts, music and litrature, however. But still, not your spazzoid
version of "subjectivity").
> and I am obviously also right that your idea
> about freedom is that it is just a word.
thin, to say the least, so you don't understand what freedom means to
sane people, when they use the word.
Boikat
0 new messages